Military Review

Foreign analogue of Iskander may appear no earlier than 2025 of the year.

46
According to forecasts of Russian specialists, the creation of a counterpart of the operational-tactical missile complex (OTRK) "Iskander-M" by foreign states is possible not earlier than 2025 of the year, reports RIA News a message from the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces of the Russian Armed Forces Colonel-General Oleg Salyukov.




In a planned manner, the re-equipment of rocket brigades from the obsolete Tochka-U missile system to the modern Iskander-M missile system continues. More than 10 brigade kits already delivered,
Salyukov said in an interview with the newspaper "Red Star".

He noted that "according to the developers, the creation of its analogue by foreign countries is possible no earlier than 2025 of the year."

This complex is highly accurate, efficient. weaponscapable of launching both ballistic and cruise missiles overcoming existing and prospective missile defense systems,
concluded the general.

OTRK "Iskander-M" is designed to hit "small-sized and area targets - missile systems, multiple rocket launchers, long-range artillery, airplanes and helicopters at airfields, command posts and communications centers - at distances up to 500 kilometers," reminds the newspaper.
Photos used:
http://www.globallookpress.com
46 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Chichikov
    Chichikov 7 March 2018 09: 54
    +4
    By this time, let's hope that we will again go forward 10 years! All women of the military-industrial complex of Russia, well, and the rest too, Happy Holiday!
    1. Romario_Argo
      Romario_Argo 7 March 2018 10: 05
      +2
      yeah (!) - just get out of the INF Treaty and reincarnate the Volga OTRK on the enlarged chassis of the Astrologer. type will be an extended missile 9M723, with an accelerating block, and a range of 3000 km.
      1. 210ox
        210ox 7 March 2018 10: 29
        +1
        Your words, but something to someone’s ears .. Our machine is already in service? Twelve years? A good gap!
        Quote: Romario_Argo
        yeah (!) - just get out of the INF Treaty and reincarnate the Volga OTRK on the enlarged chassis of the Astrologer. type will be an extended missile 9M723, with an accelerating block, and a range of 3000 km.
    2. figter
      figter 8 March 2018 11: 59
      +1
      It’s not quite decent for us to go ahead of NATO - there are nothing to cover up the ass patches.
  2. rocket757
    rocket757 7 March 2018 09: 55
    +2
    They didn’t need it. Of course, the Yankees will do it, if they are not too smart again, it will be soon.
    Here with the government contracts there will again be a tramp, some sort of small company can do it faster .... but the military industrial giants will give such a tidbit to anyone ???
    We will see!
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 7 March 2018 10: 24
      +3
      Quote: rocket757
      They didn’t need it.

      The "trendsetter", or rather, even the "fashion dictator" in this area in the West are the United States.
      And they have a completely different concept.
      Instead of one missile with a heavy warhead, there are many lighter ones. Launched from the former MLRS - M270 / MLRS and HIMARS.
      Instead of long-range missiles, aviation means.
      For logistics reasons it is more profitable for them.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 7 March 2018 10: 42
        +2
        The Yankees put on the aircraft, at their option.
        What and why is better, I hope we will never know. And so, without real application, objectively not to evaluate.
        Theoretically, the system of using various exposure options seems preferable, but certainly more expensive!
        1. ZVO
          ZVO 7 March 2018 19: 47
          +2
          Quote: rocket757
          The Yankees put on the aircraft, at their option.
          What and why is better, I hope we will never know. And so, without real application, objectively not to evaluate.
          Theoretically, the system of using various exposure options seems preferable, but certainly more expensive!

          Do not forget. that the Yankees had Pershing 2 .. One of the reasons. which eventually led to detente ...
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 7 March 2018 20: 41
            +1
            Pershing was based in Turkey and Germany, the range was enough ... but at the moment, missiles of this range are prohibited. Our Iskanders in Kaliningrad installed for a reason. They can only embed from Europe. range is limited to 500 km.
            So shaw the Yankees can do something shaw, no doubt, but where to place it? We need to build a base near, and this is TARGET! Poland, Romania, and who else? And how will the geyropa look at it ????
  3. dgonni
    dgonni 7 March 2018 10: 45
    -1
    OTRK thunder-2 Nope?
  4. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 7 March 2018 10: 59
    +4
    Yes, we have a similar rocket, already about 10 years old. "Not the gods burn the pots."
    Laura is called. It flies, however, not at 500, but at 400 km. But this is a fixable matter.
    But the warhead is the same (slightly smaller), the trajectory is exactly the same as that of Iskander.
    The rocket itself is 2 times lighter, thinner, with much less EPR. GOS will be cooler than Iskander (with IR video).
    LORA missle
    Weight: 1.6-1.8 tons
    Length: 5 meters
    Diameter: 610 mm
    Warhead 570 kg high explosive, bomblets or high speed penetrator warhead
    Operational range: 400 km
    Flight altitude 150,000 ft (50 km)
    Guidance system:
    inertial navigation, GPS and TV terminal
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 7 March 2018 11: 03
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Yes, we have a similar rocket, already about 10 years old. "Not the gods burn the pots."

      Nothing of the kind.
      For
      Quote: voyaka uh
      inertial navigation, GPS and TV terminal
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 7 March 2018 11: 22
        +1
        I am considering Iskander - short-range BR. Improved Point.
        We don’t talk about the Kyrgyz Republic Iskander.
        And Iskander, like LORA: inertia + GLONASS.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 7 March 2018 11: 46
          +1
          Quote: voyaka uh
          I am considering Iskander - short-range BR.

          Iskander missiles were originally created for strikes in the face of a strong counteraction.
          "LORA" remedy was originally "anti-pouting". Against the enemy who does not have REP means.
          Quote: voyaka uh
          And Iskander, like LORA: inertia + GLONASS.

          Yah?
          I’m afraid that Glonass on Iskander is used only to clarify the coordinates of the launcher.
          After start-up, the inertia / inertia with the correction of the trajectory on a digital map of the area. In the target area, there is an optical correlation GOS, a radar correlation GOS or an active radar GOS.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 7 March 2018 11: 52
            0
            Which EW vs BR?
            Shoot towards a missile defense - or hit or
            missed. As BR Iskander is very difficult to bring down, so is Laura.
            The speed is huge, and the time to calculate the trajectory is short.

            "optical correlation seeker,"
            both Laura and Iskander.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 7 March 2018 12: 09
              +2
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Which EW vs BR?

              Plain. The ZhPS signal was silenced in the target area, and the rocket did not plop down on the target, but somewhere nearby.
              1. Simple
                Simple 7 March 2018 13: 24
                +1
                To heap:

                https://fonzeppelin.livejournal.com/18339.html
              2. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 7 March 2018 19: 08
                0
                In modern GOS, several systems secure each other.
                If ZhPS is cut down, inertial or video joins.
  5. Professor
    Professor 7 March 2018 11: 02
    +3
    According to the forecasts of Russian experts, the creation of an analogue of the Iskander-M operational-tactical missile complex (OTRK) by foreign states is possible not earlier than 2025, reports RIA Novosti the message of the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces of the RF Armed Forces, Colonel-General Oleg Salyukov.

    Unfortunately I do not have the opportunity to ask Russian experts what is so unique in this system that the bourgeoisie will need so much time to repeat? request
  6. Old26
    Old26 7 March 2018 11: 40
    +1
    Quote: rocket757
    They didn’t need it. Of course, the Yankees will do it, if they are not too smart again, it will be soon.
    Here with the government contracts there will again be a tramp, some sort of small company can do it faster .... but the military industrial giants will give such a tidbit to anyone ???
    We will see!

    The Americans will, and soon, there are no questions. The question is, do they need to have such a complex? From European only France is capable of it. So which country are we talking about in a note?
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 7 March 2018 12: 03
      0
      We made Laura to hit the launchers
      large missiles of Hezbollah and Assad. Like a missile defense. Aircraft do not have time.
      When the mine is opened, only a small BR like Laura / Dots will be in time
      fly (if you have time recourse )
      1. Professor
        Professor 7 March 2018 12: 27
        +1
        The existence of LORA was "accidentally" declassified in 2003. They have already been exported, but no AOI was reported on their adoption. Even now, when there was a decision on the purchase of the Quality Department, they did not tell whether it was an ENT or not. Syrians recently reported that Israel allegedly destroyed an object near Damascus with ground-to-ground missiles. Laura producer writes that the rocket has no tax in the world wassat unpredictable flight path (shaped trajectory flight mode).
    2. rocket757
      rocket757 7 March 2018 12: 57
      +1
      It is hard to believe that OTRK is a defensive potential; all these blah blahs for justifying a preemptive strike are very disturbing to listen to. However, it is necessary to warn, if you are rocky, wait for a surprise!
      In Europe, they seem to rely on planning ammunition ... in the same way, as a means of protection. It is necessary to extinguish such a threat far to the point of discharge, a long-range anti-aircraft defense task.
      The Yankees are betting on their aircraft, for which they have shown most of the new developments. But in principle, they can make any weapon, they have everything for this.
      In short, they didn’t say Schaub and the arms race is in full swing ... seemingly different, but the world is no easier on this. The gun on the wall, this is no longer a warning;
  7. Engineer
    Engineer 7 March 2018 14: 21
    +1
    A missile loading system with two cables no earlier than 2040
  8. ICT
    ICT 7 March 2018 16: 38
    +1
    by foreign states maybe not earlier than 2025 of the year,


    and this then where to put then to 2025 year?
    [Quote] [/ quote]

    http://www.military-today.com/missiles/hyunmoo_2.
    htm
  9. Mentat
    Mentat 7 March 2018 16: 40
    +1
    Quote: voyaka uh
    I am considering Iskander - short-range BR. Improved Point.
    We don’t talk about the Kyrgyz Republic Iskander.
    And Iskander, like LORA: inertia + GLONASS.

    What Laura and Iskander-M have in common is that they are rockets. Systems from different leagues, not even categories.
    Iskander-M is an OTRK, which was created by copying ICBMs in miniature, with false target modules, a towed electronic warfare module, passive interference cassettes, i.e. equipped with an ICBM air defense breakout system. There is nothing similar in the West at all. At the same time, the missile is capable of both small evasion maneuvers that create a “bounce” of the trajectory, which makes a direct hit more than problematic, as well as for abrupt course changes with huge overloads. Western countries will need a lot of time to create something like this because there is nothing to build on.
    Israel is not capable of this, in particular, because it does not have modern ICBMs.
    1. Strips
      Strips 7 March 2018 17: 06
      +1
      Quote: Mentat
      Israel is not capable of this, in particular, because it does not have modern ICBMs.



      Jericho 3?
    2. ZVO
      ZVO 7 March 2018 19: 52
      +2
      Quote: Mentat
      Quote: voyaka uh
      I am considering Iskander - short-range BR. Improved Point.
      We don’t talk about the Kyrgyz Republic Iskander.
      And Iskander, like LORA: inertia + GLONASS.

      What Laura and Iskander-M have in common is that they are rockets. Systems from different leagues, not even categories.
      Iskander-M is an OTRK, which was created by copying ICBMs in miniature, with false target modules, a towed electronic warfare module, passive interference cassettes, i.e. equipped with an ICBM air defense breakout system. There is nothing similar in the West at all. At the same time, the missile is capable of both small evasion maneuvers that create a “bounce” of the trajectory, which makes a direct hit more than problematic, as well as for abrupt course changes with huge overloads. Western countries will need a lot of time to create something like this because there is nothing to build on.
      Israel is not capable of this, in particular, because it does not have modern ICBMs.


      Druk, where do you get such grass?
      Towed EW Modules ...

      Do you understand anything about speed? in rocket circuitry? What jamming tapes are you going to plug into the iskander?

      Oh and weird ...
  10. Mentat
    Mentat 7 March 2018 17: 17
    0
    Quote: Tiras
    Quote: Mentat
    Israel is not capable of this, in particular, because it does not have modern ICBMs.

    Jericho 3?

    With all the confusion and secrecy, Jericho 3 is not a full-fledged ICBM. Moreover, if Israel suddenly decides to create something similar to Iskander-M, all the vagueness and secrecy will be greatly decimated, therefore it is extremely doubtful that he will do so, especially since Israel does not see the need for such a developed OTRK.
    1. Strips
      Strips 7 March 2018 17: 41
      0
      Quote: Mentat
      With all the confusion and secrecy, Jericho 3 is not a full-fledged ICBM.



      Strange statement what
      1. The comment was deleted.
  11. Mentat
    Mentat 7 March 2018 17: 26
    0
    Quote: TIT
    by foreign states maybe not earlier than 2025 of the year,


    and this then where to put then to 2025 year?


    http://www.military-today.com/missiles/hyunmoo_2.
    htm

    You yourself read what is written in the note on your link? “This” is a Korean-tuned version of Iskander-E. Buying in Russia is not quite the same thing as developing independently an equal in performance (and not an export version), do not you think?
    1. ICT
      ICT 7 March 2018 18: 41
      +1
      Foreign analog of Iskander

      Well, I guess Google hasn’t blocked me yet
      http://forum.topwar.ru/topic/11250-%D0%B8%D1%81%D
      0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80-%D1%81-%D0%B1%
      D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2-%D0%B6%D1%91%
      D0%BB%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80%
      D1% 8F /
      1. ICT
        ICT 7 March 2018 18: 44
        +1
        there are extra spaces in the link,
        just google
        Iskander, from the shores of the Yellow Sea
  12. Mentat
    Mentat 7 March 2018 18: 45
    0
    Quote: Tiras
    Quote: Mentat
    With all the confusion and secrecy, Jericho 3 is not a full-fledged ICBM.



    Strange statement what

    Why? Just an assumption based on crumbs of publicly available information.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 7 March 2018 19: 05
      0
      Jericho is a medium-range missile. We do not need ICBMs.
  13. Mentat
    Mentat 7 March 2018 20: 24
    0
    Quote: ZVO
    Quote: Tiras
    Quote: Mentat
    With all the confusion and secrecy, Jericho 3 is not a full-fledged ICBM.



    Strange statement what


    The mentat is generally very strange ...
    He then hangs a supercharged rocket load ....
    Baben ...

    1. Keep yourself in control, please.
    2. A big request to refrain from poking and unconstructive.
  14. Mentat
    Mentat 7 March 2018 20: 37
    0
    Quote: ZVO
    Do you understand anything about speed? in rocket circuitry? What jamming tapes are you going to plug into the iskander?

    А you specialist in flight speeds and rocket circuitry? If not, a smaller aplomb will beautify you. If yes, which is extremely doubtful, it seems spontaneous your decision to write on the forum. Hang it over your workplace: “Information in excess of publicly available information may be an occasion for specialists to visit you on high-speed trips to places not so remote and the Druzhba saw circuitry.
    1. Mentat
      Mentat 7 March 2018 20: 52
      0
      The information I provided is a simple paraphrase of the text from Wikipedia, and of course there will be no qualitatively different information on the Iskander site. To understand this, you need minimal aikyu.
  15. Old26
    Old26 8 March 2018 10: 22
    +1
    Quote: TIT
    by foreign states maybe not earlier than 2025 of the year,


    and this then where to put then to 2025 year?


    http://www.military-today.com/missiles/hyunmoo_2.
    htm

    Hyunmu 2? To hide. She is already in the container, she is not visible ...

    Quote: Mentat
    Iskander-M is the OTRK, which was created by copying ICBMs in miniature.

    Not. I certainly understand. Pre-holiday day. At work and at home, they probably already got a little bit crazy, but even on the pre-holiday day, you shouldn’t flog the rubbish (it hurts), ICBM in miniature? I wonder where you managed to see a single-stage ICBM. In addition, the complex was engaged in design bureau which in its life NOT ONE ICBM in metal is not built. One thing was, and even then it didn’t reach the test. Iskander is still an extreme rocket in the Uranus - Tochka - Tochka-U - Oka - Oka-U - Volga - Volna - Iskander line-up (created as part of the OCD) "Tender" complex 9K715) and finally "Iskander (9K720)

    Of course, there are no “Uranus”, “Waves” and the first “Iskander” on the line - but it conveys development trends. One comes from the other, and did not create the Iskander, like the ICBM in miniature


    Quote: Mentat
    Iskander-M is an OTRK, which was created by copying ICBMs in miniature, with false target modules, a towed electronic warfare module, passive interference cassettes, i.e. equipped with an ICBM air defense breakout system. .

    Respected! The Iskander rocket was created while the Stealth technologies began to be introduced, that is, a rocket with a low EPR was created. All cable channels were "licked", the seams were covered with a special sealant ... And here it tows "EW modules" in your place ??? And why not put corner reflectors on it at all so that it can be seen for hundreds of kilometers? What nonsense did you freeze?
    Modules of false targets, cassettes of passive interference ??? I don’t know if you are aware or not, but all this on the ICBM is located at the breeding stage (sometimes called the combat stage). There are warheads, heavy false warheads, and light false warheads and jammers. And all this is "bred" by the foot of breeding
    BUT. But the Iskander rocket is a rocket with INTEGRABLE HEAD. Not a specific warhead falls on the target, but ALL ROCKET. The head fairing is discharged at altitudes of about 2-2,5 km, and the opening height of the cluster head is about 0,9-1,4 km. When using a high-explosive and special warhead, the head fairing is not reset at all. How will your false targets and jammers accompany the falling rocket? "Get out" on their own, through the hatches, which they themselves will open? I’m not saying already where all this stuff can be stuck with such a tight arrangement
    1. ICT
      ICT 8 March 2018 17: 22
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      She is already in the container, she is not visible ...

      but it is and is an analogue (and possibly even superior) of Alexander even today in the yard of 8 March 2018, and not like 2025
  16. Old26
    Old26 8 March 2018 10: 33
    0
    Quote: Mentat
    You yourself read what is written in the note on your link? “This” is a Korean-tuned version of Iskander-E. Buying in Russia is not quite the same thing as developing independently an equal in performance (and not an export version), do not you think?

    By the way, I’ll supplement the first post. This is not tuning the version of Iskander-E purchased from Russia. Many are interested, negotiations with many have been underway for almost a decade and a half, but in real life only one country has this complex - Armenia

    The Koreans developed "Hyunmu-2" on their own, although it cannot be ruled out that they were provided with consultations. But this is not "tuning" the finished rocket. Yes, Hyunmu-2 is similar to Iskander, but only similar ...

    Quote: Mentat
    The information I provided is a simple paraphrase of the text from Wikipedia, and of course there will be no qualitatively different information on the Iskander site. To understand this, you need minimal aikyu.

    Wikipedia is not the ultimate truth. Yes convenient, yes a mobile resource, but sometimes with such mistakes that you wonder
  17. Mentat
    Mentat 8 March 2018 14: 06
    0
    Quote: Old26
    Quote: Mentat
    You yourself read what is written in the note on your link? “This” is a Korean-tuned version of Iskander-E. Buying in Russia is not quite the same thing as developing independently an equal in performance (and not an export version), do not you think?

    By the way, I’ll supplement the first post. This is not tuning the version of Iskander-E purchased from Russia. Many are interested, negotiations with many have been underway for almost a decade and a half, but in real life only one country has this complex - Armenia

    The Koreans developed "Hyunmu-2" on their own, although it cannot be ruled out that they were provided with consultations. But this is not "tuning" the finished rocket. Yes, Hyunmu-2 is similar to Iskander, but only similar ...

    You read, and do not see what you read. This is written in a note, which, in turn, had not been read by the previous “speaker”, but brought as an argument.
    By the way, and on the basis of what sources do you make your statements?

    Quote: Mentat
    The information I provided is a simple paraphrase of the text from Wikipedia, and of course there will be no qualitatively different information on the Iskander site. To understand this, you need minimal aikyu.

    Wikipedia is not the ultimate truth. Yes convenient, yes a mobile resource, but sometimes with such mistakes that you wonder

    You read, and don’t see what you read 2. Wikipedia is just an aggregator of open information. What is written there (electronic warfare, passive interference) is distributed in the media. How it got there and why it spreads, the question is different.
    I can repeat once again: there will be no information of a different accuracy category about Iskander, and you do not have it with a 99, (99)% guarantee. So calm down already and moderate your youthful fervor, decorated with gray hair. Moreover, loud attacks with zero real awareness look comical.
  18. Old26
    Old26 8 March 2018 22: 03
    +2
    Quote: TIT
    but it is and is an analogue (and possibly even superior) of Alexander even today in the yard of 8 March 2018, and not like 2025

    What does analog mean? Functional - yes, of course. These are missiles, let's say one class. As for the performance characteristics - this can be approached in different ways.
    Its dimensions are much larger than the Iskander with almost the same diameter (12 meters at Hyunmu versus 7,3 meters at Iskander. Weight - about 5,4 tons for the Korean versus about 4 tons for us. The design of the case is about the same.
    Range -
    • Hyunmu-2A, namely, it was shown in the photograph with a range of 300 km. MS - almost 1 ton (997 kg)
    • Hyunmu-2V range of 500 km. with almost 1 ton (997 kg) of warheads or 800 km from 500 kg (a more accurate copy of our Iskander)
    • Hyunmu-2S (currently under development) range of approximately 800 km. with almost 1 ton (997 kg) GCH (more similar to our "Volga" in appearance)


    Quote: Mentat
    You read, and do not see what you read. This is written in a note, which, in turn, had not been read by the previous “speaker”, but brought as an argument.
    By the way, and on the basis of what sources do you make your statements?

    Based on what sources? Well it's hard to say. I have a large archive, about one and a half hundred storage units. Plus the archive on your computer is about 1-2 terabytes. On the computer, the panel displays shortcuts for more than 70 sites. Both ours and theirs. You should never work with one source of information. They sometimes contradict each other. But if you want to know, they must shovel a lot of information and a lot of sources. Then something becomes already guaranteed to be accurate, sometimes it approaches a certain parameter, not accurate, but fairly close and reliable.

    Quote: Mentat
    You read, and don’t see what you read 2. Wikipedia is just an aggregator of open information. What is written there (electronic warfare, passive interference) is distributed in the media. How it got there and why it spreads, the question is different.
    I can repeat once again: there will be no information of a different accuracy category about Iskander, and you do not have it with a 99, (99)% guarantee. So calm down already and moderate your youthful fervor, decorated with gray hair. Moreover, loud attacks with zero real awareness look comical.

    As for Vicki - I repeat again. It may be the original source of some information, but it is quite inaccurate. Sometimes even the English-language Wikipedia gives more information than Russian.
    Information about the Iskander - a wagon and a small trolley. It only needs to be found and processed. And do not refer only to Wikipedia. So learn to work with sources.
    As for the desire to moderate the ardor - let's not tell each other what to do. For there is a good phrase - do not say what to do and I will not say where you should go. With zero awareness, your posts with reference to Wikipedia are still different. So let everyone remain in their own opinion. I will write the comments that I wrote before. Do not like it - or reasonably prove that this is not so. But only reasoned, without reference to secrecy. Or you can completely ignore
    1. ICT
      ICT 9 March 2018 15: 10
      0
      Quote: Old26
      What does analog mean?

      well, comparable goals and opportunities to achieve them
      example from aviation
  19. Clumsy
    Clumsy 8 March 2018 22: 29
    0
    Well, as usual, 50/50, maybe yes or maybe not.
  20. Old26
    Old26 9 March 2018 15: 56
    +1
    Quote: TIT
    well, comparable goals and opportunities to achieve them
    example from aviation

    Then yes. Without going into details - approximate analogues.